Never assume employers are always kind or just

Regarding a letter writer's question of Jan. 19, "Do you see how minimum wage laws prevent some people from obtaining meaningful work?" In two words: Not really.

The hypothetical cases offered as proof are just that: hypothetical. They assume a benevolent, just employer.

Allow me to present three examples of how many in the corporate world actually operate:

1. Jay Gould, a 19th-century railroad tycoon, when faced with a labor strike, is quoted as saying: "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."

(The use of the term "working class" is interesting, since today the wealthy accuse the working class of waging class warfare.)

2. In 1912, my grandfather lost an arm and a leg in a coal-mining accident. With no government-sponsored disability or unemployment programs in place, his only recourse was to sue the mine owner. While still in the hospital, one of the mine foremen visited and asked him to sign some papers so that he could get help from the mining company. Since the foreman was a friend, he signed without reading the paperwork ... and signed away his right to sue.

OK, so that was then and this is now. Things are better now. Well, let's try a more recent example.

3. In October, McDonald's workers, unable to pay their bills, were advised, by McDonald's, to find help from food pantries or enlist in government benefit programs, instead of seeking higher wages.

Granted, minimum wage is an imperfect solution to a complex problem. Things would be better if government intervention wasn't required to protect the underpaid.

However, even McDonald's sees the need for such intervention, except that in its model the taxpayer foots the bill, not McDonald's.